The Court ruled unanimously that the government does have the power to control intrastate wetlands as waters of the United States.

[1] This ruling was effectively revised in Rapanos v. United States (2006),[2] in which the Court adopted a very narrow interpretation of "navigable waters."

The case involves developer Riverside Bayview Homes Inc., which began placing fill materials on its property near the shores of Lake St. Clair, Michigan.

The Eastern Michigan District Court held that the property was freshwater wetlands under the Corps's regulatory definition, which reads, "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions", and as such is subject to the Corps's permit authority because the lands were characterized by those conditions, and the property was adjacent to a body of navigable water.

The Court of Appeals reversed, arguing that the Corps overstepped the definition of "waters of the United States", and took the view that the Corps's authority under the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations must be narrowly construed to avoid a taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and therefore Riverside Bayview was free to fill its property without obtaining a permit.